Vaingloriousness

"There's nothing wrong with an enlarged gap between rich and poor"

Said a privately educated middle class university student.  An enlarged gap between rich and poor is evidence of the failings of society, politics and economics. The fucking failings of mankind. The urge to retaliate to this imbecility is insatiable, to name and shame, out this idiot for his close minded naive opinions; but he's not the only one.

I, for one, didn't realise we were living in 1920s America where economic prosperity was stipulated by narrow minded money obsessed bankers with no understanding of the poor such as Andrew Mellon. I didn't realise it was every man for himself. I thought we'd evolved somewhat past that point.

Do milestones such as the Great Depression and the Financial Crisis not signify that the 'every man for himself', hierarchical, money obsessed economy model doesn't work? We're still in a deficit, there are still people living below the breadline. Really- what is the point?

But we've got out own Andrew Mellon, our own big money-big business-crush the poor chancellor of the exchequer: George Osborne, who fails to understand over half of the population.

In light of the public shock facing the Philpott case Osborne claims:

"The courts are responsible for sentencing, but I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state, and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state, subsidising lifestyles like that. I think that debate needs to be had."

It isn't a fucking lifestyle issue. It's an issue of evil. Society can produce 'bad' people. But not evil. It's intrinsic. It's not due to the benefits system and the welfare state that Philpott to murdered his children- it's because he was intrinsically evil- anyone would have to be to do that. Nature not nurture: fucking naivety. Maybe rather than looking at reforming the welfare state it is the judiciary system that needs to be analysed; because really, is his 'life' sentence good enough?

Society is unjust. Rather than punishing Philpott adequately for his crimes, MPs are calling for the welfare system to be analysed and thus punishing the poor. It's blatant stereotyping and it's completely uncalled for. As it stand only 3% of the total cost of welfare goes to the unemployed including the Philpott family and 40% is spent on the elderly- how does it seem right then to claim that the welfare state needs reforming due to this case? A reform that would simply widen the gap between rich and poor, desecrate equality and destroy lives. Statistics and figures should have no prevalence over people's quality of life. Money should mean nothing but it consumes fucking everything.

In a society based on logic the concepts of 'underprivileged' and 'deprived' would not exist and people would not be perceived as either rich or poor

-but simply people.

To Sever for Years

Allegedly there is a severance between people and politics in this country: but is there really?

Perhaps politics has become disengaged from us? Admittedly we as a nation have changed significantly since the 1950s when political engagement was at a high, however, has politics itself evolved alongside us? I don't think so.

In an article written by the Chairman of the U.K Youth Citizenship Commission, Jon Tonge, he attempts to claim that youth disengagement is due to a lack of understanding of the term 'good citizen' leading to a separation of the 'good civic participant' and the 'active political contributor'.  Maybe that is because these ideal do not exist? Surely creating a generation of 'good citizens' would derail the need for different political parties altogether, as by being a 'good citizen' everyone would have the same ideals?

These terms mean nothing to me. A 'good civic participant' arouses an image of homo-idyllic-duplicates, in which becoming an 'active political contributor' merely gives politics more power. If everyone adhered to these ideals, then there would be no disengagement from politics, but a lack of individualism and priority only to the masses; with everyone voting and participating politically this gives those at the top more power, removing the need for parties as surely the 'good citizens' would all advocate the same policies.

But realistically this is not ideal for 'us'. Who wants to become a homo-idyllic-duplicate? Not me. What must be strived for within politics is the enhancement of individualism: making politics important for the individual, making it personal rather than addressing people as a 'target group'.

But do all politicians want the masses to engage?
In some respects this could have a negative influence on party popularity, for instance, many of those labelled as 'disengaged' from politics are also 'disadvantaged' and therefore are hardly likely to vote Conservative and become increasingly deprived. Therefore, why is it such a surprise that political disengagement is at an all-time high when the party in power does not desire increased participation?

Rather than focusing on 'disengagement' solely, firstly all the 'dis-' needs to removed from society; 'DISadvantaged' should not be a term used to describe anyone living within the U.K, a first world country. At the very least people should not be DIScriminated for being DISadvantaged. How can the 'disadvantaged' be criticised for 'disengagement' when they have no trust, and no reason to trust the political sphere?

Clearly disengagement with politics is ripe, however this is not wholly due to the current idea that 'people don't care any more'  or that 'people don't understand' it's because politics no longer understands the people.  Arguably, the right to vote also entails the right not to vote and the right not to politically participate and therefore political disengagement, rather than being inactive, may be an active stance against the current political climate.

If this continues to derail then politics and the people may sever for years to come.

'Leftie Multi-Cultural Crap'

One can be as cynical as they want about the Olympic opening ceremony including the suitability of it's expense in this ever deepening recession. However, perhaps a display of what is quintessentially British was what was needed to remind us that, although we've fucked up, we have a lot to be proud of. After all, money is money but happiness; that is something else. I'd like to think that the Olympic opening ceremony made people happy and if that costs 27million quid then so be it. Restoration of pride is what is needed in Britain to remind people that, although David Cameron wants to cut the NHS, we have something great going on here. Mr Cameron: take a look at the Olympic Ceremony and realise what makes US proud to be British and don't attempt to sabotage something that is so defining of our country. Leftie multi-cultural pride.